Predestination

[PaulDA]

[DvChWi]

FYI, we had a huge discussion on this here, and I'm not sure how many will want to go through all that again...I should now about this, since I was the guy who brought it up last time, and you'll see a similiar warning given to me in that thread.

EDIT:
Here is Josh's statement from last time:

AUUUGGGGGHHHHHHH! Duck for cover!

DV, allow me to give you an interesting little bit of Phorum trivia: A few months back, we logged away, like, eleven pages of the longest and most heated Calvinism/free will debate you've ever seen. Since then, we have all prayed to God daily that nobody would ever bring it up again at this board. happy.gif

Well, perhaps not. Actually, I was the ONLY Calvinist at the Phorum when we had the last debate, so it might be fun to revisit it now that the cavalry is here. wink.gif

This should be interesting.

[Josh]

Indeed, this is probably a subject that most pholks here are none to eager to re-explore, but, if we absolutely MUST talk about it, I am always willing to defend my beliefs. (And I can tell you right now that all of the points mentioned in your post, Paul, range from misinformed to ridiculously silly).

[Vlad!]

My stance on predestination has changed a bit from back when I was 100% free-will. Not to say I'm Calvinist by any means, but I have decided that regardless of where the truth lies (and like so many things, it no doubt lies somewhere in the middle of the continuum) it won't change how I should live my life. The Bible may be unclear about how soverignty, free will, and choice factor into salvation, but it is much more forthcoming about how Christians should live and act.

There is one point which I will staunchly defend because I think the entirety of our faith depends upon it: Adam and Eve MUST have had the freedom to choose for themselves between good and evil in the garden. If not, our whole religion and indeed our existance on earth is a farce and a horrible joke played on us by God.

[Josh]

There is one point which I will staunchly defend because I think the entirety of our faith depends upon it: Adam and Eve MUST have had the freedom to choose for themselves between good and evil in the garden.

No disagreement here.

[plumb_fan]

I don't know why people have such a problem with free will and predestination co-existing.

[Josh]

I don't know why people have such a problem with free will and predestination co-existing.

Indeed. I mean, the Bible uses the term "predestination" very explicitly, and while it doesn't really discuss free will in those terms, it does talk about "choosing" quite a lot, so anyone who denies the existence of either of these ideas in Scripture is simply ignorant.

It's how we define each term that can lead to trouble...

[cbluejays]

[Josh]

An excellent reminder of the perspective that we should all try to maintain, even if I kinda wonder if Wesley actually understood his beliefs or not. Thanks for posting that, Paul.

[PaulDA]

If God predestines (chooses) who will be saved and who will go to hell, with the people having no choice in the matter then why does the apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, and specifically in verse 22:
"To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."??
If we are all predestined to be either saved or lost with no choice in the matter, why would the apostle Paul 'become all things to try and save some?'
If we are predestined or preordained, what he is saying would make absolutely no sense.
 

[plumb_fan]

An excellent reminder of the perspective that we should all try to maintain, even if I kinda wonder if Wesley actually understood his beliefs or not. Thanks for posting that, Paul.

Well, if i'm remebering correctly, Wesley was originally Presbyterian.  They are considered to be Calvinist, though they soften the view of Predestination.

I do not consider myself a Calvinist, but a Methodist with Calvinistic leanings (I don't fully agree with TULIP).  In any case, I believe that most of the time there is a rather large difference between what Calvinists believe and what they are thought to believe.

I've heard people say "well what's the point of the great commission then?"  My first thought is 'did you understand what the point was originally?'  The reason in fulfilling it isn't primarily (imo) the salvation of souls, though it is a nice by-product.  The reason we do  it is because God told us to and that should be reason enough.

Another thing I hear is "well what's the point in living a life devoted to Christ if you wind up in hell?"  Well as pointed out by Simeon and Wesley, because of our depravity we would always choose to reject God of our own will.  Aside from that, I don't know a single Calvinist who believes such is possible.  If you live a life devoted to Christ on earth it is because you are saved.  Because you are saved you can do nothing else.

I don't have a problem with people not believing that God aribitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell.  I don't believe that myself.  The problem comes in when people try to deny Him the authority to do so.  They say "a loving God would never do such a thing."  By that standard the God of the OT is pretty mean and vengeful to me.  We need to realize that God is not simply loving.  God is love.  He is not simply just, He is justice.  Instead of those terms defining Him, we need to realize He is the one who should be defining those terms.

Disagreeing with predestination is cool, attempting to take away God's sovereignty on the matter is not.

[plumb_fan]

If God predestines (chooses) who will be saved and who will go to hell, with the people having no choice in the matter then why does the apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, and specifically in verse 22:
"To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."??
If we are all predestined to be either saved or lost with no choice in the matter, why would the apostle Paul 'become all things to try and save some?'
If we are predestined or preordained, what he is saying would make absolutely no sense.

As mentioned in my other post, the simple fact God told us to fulfill it should be reason enough.  We also do not know who is saved, even John Calvin believed that.  We also do not know whether or not our role in evangelism is the way for that person to come to Christ (from man's perspective, always being saved from God's).

I'm also not found of taking one verse and isolating it.  That can often lead to said verse being taken out of context.  Since you bring up Paul's writings though, I feel some passages from Romans might be appropriate.

9:21-24
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What  if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction?  What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, who he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

9:13-16
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."  What then shall we say?  Is God unjust?  Not at all!  For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."  It does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

[Vlad!]

If at some point I choose to become a parent, I will be taking on a responsibility for a child. Although looked at purely objectively I don't owe that kid anything--heck, I helped bring it into the world, my wife fed it, and we brought it to the point where it can function on its own, so it owes us something--I would be criminally negligent if I did not continue to feed, clothe, and shelter the child until it is no longer under my roof. Sometimes tough love is necessary, but my basic obligation is still there.

In the same way, God brought humanity into the world. The very fact that I exist should seem to imply that some sort of obligation exists on the part of my creator. The message in the book of Job and in Romans 9 suggests that we may very well be little more than puppets, molded to suit the purpose of God's will. However, Calvinistic theology says that we are supposed to be OK with this since a) we are horrible beings and all deserve the worst possible punishment anyway and b) who can argue with God?

I have severe reservations about both of these arguments. As the 'doctrine' of total depravity states, I am innately totally sinful (I see the idea of depravity somewhat differently, but this is what a not insignificant portion of the church would have you believe). Holding me responsible for this, then, is like me blaming my computer for doing what I programmed it to when I programmed it wrong. To this point, the most common objection is b. However, my argument to b is as I stated in the first paragraph: God certainly is soverign, if for no other reason then his power, far greater than ours. But even though a parent is far stronger and more experienced than his or her children, this does not imply that the parent should wield total power over the child even to the point of death.

Ultimately, Christianity teaches that God is loving and full of grace. And unlike a human parent, he is not flawed by the flesh. The only thing I can really do with these arguments is trust that things are not as bleak as a reading of these verses might make them out to be--after all, there are plenty of verses indicating that God wishes all men to be saved and that he is in nature a loving God, and specifically that he loves mankind. Presented with a paradox such as this, what can I do but have faith that in the end things will work out?

[plumb_fan]

I understand where you're coming from Vlad (it's pretty much what I used to believe) though I may not completely agree.

On the issue of total depravity:  is there a  difference between creating someone to always make bad choices and creating them knowing they will always make bad choices?  Maybe i'm just playing semantics, but I see the two differently.


 

[Vlad!]

I understand where you're coming from Vlad (it's pretty much what I used to believe) though I may not completely agree.
 

So (and I really do want to know), how did you get from point a to point b? What was it that resolved all those issues and turned you into what appears to be a firm believer in predestination?

On the issue of total depravity:  is there a  difference between creating someone to always make bad choices and creating them knowing they will always make bad choices?  Maybe i'm just playing semantics, but I see the two differently.

That's a good question. My answer is no. Assuming that God started out with nothing, he could shape humanity any way he saw fit. Either depravity was a mistake or it was intentional. There is really no middle ground.

FWIW, I don't believe in total depravity. I know that 'no one is righteous, not even one'--and I agree. However, one doesn't have to be rich to spend money. In the same way, one doesn't have to be righteous to, of his or her own free will, make the righteous choice from time to time.

[PaulDA]

If God predestines (chooses) who will be saved and who will go to hell, with the people having no choice in the matter then why does the apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, and specifically in verse 22:
"To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."??
If we are all predestined to be either saved or lost with no choice in the matter, why would the apostle Paul 'become all things to try and save some?'
If we are predestined or preordained, what he is saying would make absolutely no sense.

As mentioned in my other post, the simple fact God told us to fulfill it should be reason enough.  We also do not know who is saved, even John Calvin believed that.  We also do not know whether or not our role in evangelism is the way for that person to come to Christ (from man's perspective, always being saved from God's).

I'm also not found of taking one verse and isolating it.  That can often lead to said verse being taken out of context.  Since you bring up Paul's writings though, I feel some passages from Romans might be appropriate.
 

There are over 100 verses that show salvation is open to ALL people.
God even said He wants everyone to be saved if possible, and He wants no one to perish.
That would be kind of cruel and ironic if He choose people to PURPOSLY perish and then lamented the fact that they perished.
Kind of a sick and twisted mind wouldn't you say?
That would be akin to a serial killer tieing up 5 women and then saying, "I wish all of you had a chance to escape" and then proceed to torture and murder each one.

[Josh]

Ultimately, Christianity teaches that God is loving and full of grace. And unlike a human parent, he is not flawed by the flesh. The only thing I can really do with these arguments is trust that things are not as bleak as a reading of these verses might make them out to be--after all, there are plenty of verses indicating that God wishes all men to be saved and that he is in nature a loving God, and specifically that he loves mankind. Presented with a paradox such as this, what can I do but have faith that in the end things will work out?

If at some point I choose to become a parent, I will be taking on a responsibility for a child. Although looked at purely objectively I don't owe that kid anything--heck, I helped bring it into the world, my wife fed it, and we brought it to the point where it can function on its own, so it owes us something--I would be criminally negligent if I did not continue to feed, clothe, and shelter the child until it is no longer under my roof. Sometimes tough love is necessary, but my basic obligation is still there.

In the same way, God brought humanity into the world. The very fact that I exist should seem to imply that some sort of obligation exists on the part of my creator.

No it doesn't, because this analogy is flawed. If you had a child, you would not be a better/more valuable person than your child; meanwhile, God is a perfect being with absolutely no obligations to imperfect beings, therefore He doesn't owe you anything. You're the one who screwed up, not Him.

I have severe reservations about both of these arguments. As the 'doctrine' of total depravity states, I am innately totally sinful (I see the idea of depravity somewhat differently, but this is what a not insignificant portion of the church would have you believe). Holding me responsible for this, then, is like me blaming my computer for doing what I programmed it to when I programmed it wrong.

No, this isn't very good theology at all. Adam was not, in fact, "programmed" to be innately sinful; he was created with moral free will, but was not founded in righteousness, making it possible for him to screw up all on his own (ie, not because he was a puppet). Unfortunately for us, Adam was also the representative for all of mankind, and therefore his depravity has been inhereted by all of us. But to say that God programmed us to be wicked from the very beginning is simply a misrepresentation of Calvinist theology.

To this point, the most common objection is b. However, my argument to b is as I stated in the first paragraph: God certainly is soverign, if for no other reason then his power, far greater than ours. But even though a parent is far stronger and more experienced than his or her children, this does not imply that the parent should wield total power over the child even to the point of death.

God is the Creator of all, but the Father of only some. This is where Calvinist theology gets it right where all others fail-- the Calvinist says that every last one of God's children is saved, whereas the non-Calvinist is forced to admit that God willingly lets some of His "beloved children" die, offering them His hand while He knows good and well that they are too weak to reach out and grab.  

[dgp11776]

I'm just going to say this and bow out.  For your further study, look up all of the mentions of election in the N.T.  I think that all but one (I think in Romans 8 - it's been awhile since I looked at this) deals not with individuals, but with "the elect," i.e., the Church.  In my mind, this opens up quite rationally the co-existence of predestination and free-will.  The Church (universal church, that is) is predestined; we have free-will to be in the Church by salvation through Jesus Christ.  That's all I'll say here.

[PaulDA]

[Tom]

when i was young i was what you might call a hyper-Arminian. i thought, anybody can be saved because anybody can choose of their own free will to save themselves by calling on Jesus because they decided it would be a good idea.

Then Romans chapter 9 in one very moving and Spirit-filled moment changed my perspective forever.

what i didn't comprehend in my spiritual youth was the basic Biblical concept the we, as depraved and fallen beings who only have self-service as a natural inclination cannot and will not seek God, except for the Holy Spirit calling them first. it is our RESPONSE to His urgent bidding that brings about salvation. the Bible clearly states that the heart of man is evil continually and no man seeks God because no man is pure of heart. God in His infinite mercy seeks us out because He cannot bear to see us suffer eternally and He wants a relationship with us.

Now why would God want a relationship with us if he didn't have a plan pre-destined for our lives? when we're saved we become slaves to Christ. slave is a negative term i know, but that is what we become. our drives and initiatives are forever subserviant to the drives and initiatives that God pre-ordained would be the sum total of our lives. we are reminded that we are slaves so that nobody will think more of themselves than they should. it keeps us in our place, under God.

and ultimately our place is not to question the "Potter." is it a terrible thing that some go to hell? Yes. does God weep for them? Yes. does He want them to go to hell. No. the Bible says that hell and the lake of fire were created for Satan and his rebellious fallen angels. it was NEVER intended for us. but sadly some fall away and are seduced by Satan.
so did God make some "vessels" for destruction? Yes. should that make me arrogant in my salvation? absolutely not! the fact that God chooses to have mercy on our souls should cause us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." does that mean we have to earn it? No. what that means partly is that we shouldn't get puffed up and proud...as some "hyper-Calvinists" are. it isn't for us to judge the sovereignty of God. we can't call Him "Lord, but..." He is Lord, period.

now, i do not call myself a Calvinist per se. i call myself a Christian. John Calvin was right on the money in many ways, but he made some errors because he was a human. i don't attribute my faith in anything or anyone but God and His word. men will fail you and dissappoint you, but you'll never go wrong by just following God.

ultimately, (i like that word today) this all boils down to why it is wrong to judge somebody, as Derek Webb would say, "by a law that we can't keep." you don't know whom God has ordained for salvation. and i believe it is a sin to treat anybody as if you think they may not be "savable." only God knows and decides. it is so not our job to use discretion. the Word says to preach to EVERY creature. in my heart, i want to believe that God gives everyone a chance. but even if that should prove to be less than 100% accurate, He is still calling the shots. and who am I to question Him?

the sovereignty of God bugs us all at some point. some more than others. we want control, because we are sinful and sometimes think we know better. but we don't.

 

[Vlad!]

No it doesn't, because this analogy is flawed. If you had a child, you would not be a better/more valuable person than your child; meanwhile, God is a perfect being with absolutely no obligations to imperfect beings...

I realize the analogy is flawed (I mentioned as much in the post), but that doesn't change the basic fact that by creating humanity, God has certain obligations towards us. A somewhat closer analogy would be adopting a pet--even though I am intrinsically a better person than this pet, I still have an obligation towards it because it will almost certainly not survive on its own and because I chose to adopt it, saying 'yes, I will care for this pet.' Just because God is perfect does not mean he is magically absolved of his obligation. It seems to me, and it puzzles me to no end how rational people can even disagree with this, that the act of creating a being capable of feeling and understanding implies that at the very least that being should be given a chance. Offering a helping hand that you know someone can't reach is not a chance, it's a mockery.

, therefore He doesn't owe you anything. You're the one who screwed up, not Him.

I don't recall being the one who ate the freaking fruit. Taking some guy who lived millennia before I was even born and saying 'he was a representative for you, his failings are being imparted to you. Therefore, you are intrinsically a horrible person and deserve the worst of deaths for all eternity' is not justice, it's a twisted comedy. That's like me butchering every German I meet and claiming to be justified because of Hitler.

I agree that I am a sinful person. I do not agree that there is nothing worthwhile in me apart from God. As I understand it, predestination is justified by saying 'we are utter refuse, worthy of Hell, and are from the moment we are born. It is therefore a credit to the grace of God that some of us are saved at all.' Well, if we're so bad, and were that way from the beginning, that badness had to be imparted on us from somewhere. From Adam. Ok, but Adam was just a man. Ultimately, it must have come from God (this would be the Calvinist interpretation of the curse on man, most likely). God puts a curse on man, then says to man 'you are horrible because of this curse.' There is no substance to that cycle, no meaning outside some farce of justice.

No, this isn't very good theology at all. Adam was not, in fact, "programmed" to be innately sinful; he was created with moral free will, but was not founded in righteousness, making it possible for him to screw up all on his own (ie, not because he was a puppet). Unfortunately for us, Adam was also the representative for all of mankind, and therefore his depravity has been inhereted by all of us. But to say that God programmed us to be wicked from the very beginning is simply a misrepresentation of Calvinist theology.

Maybe I have misrepresented Calvinist theology, but if so I don't think this is it. I never claimed that Adam was programmed to be sinful--as you may recall, earlier in this thread this is one point we agreed on. As discussed above, it's the inheriting of that depravity that is completely untenable.

When I read arguments for Calvinist theology (and a lot of those you'll see elsewhere, regrettably, are little more than rhetoric, which is why I can at least tolerate these phorum debates), I get the feeling that in the Calvinist worldview the game has been rigged against us. Any argument is essentially countered with two things: you are a horrible person who doesn't deserve to be saved to begin with, and this is the way God does it and who can argue with him? Those are non-arguments. The defense of 'a' looks like "you are a horrible person because of your depravity. Your depravity came from Adam, as a representative of the human race. Adam's depravity was due to his actions and it was propagated down to you. Does that seem unfair? Too bad, who can argue with God?" and look: we've arrived at b. Then you ask for a defense of 'b', and the argument goes "of course you can't argue with God, he is the perfect creator and you are just the created, a flawed and depraved person" and then we're back at 'a'.

PaulDA: Now you see why we cringe every time someone brings up Predestination?

[PaulDA]

There are only two scenarios that make any sense, as far as a loving God is concerned.

1. God gives everyone a chance to be saved.
2. God saves everyone.

Nothing else makes any sense for a God of love.

The 3rd scenario makes no sense:
3. God purposly sends people to hell without giving them a chance at salvation.....
Yes, God is a God of 'judgement' and 'justice' but what kind of 'justice' is it to create someone who has no chance to even pick salvation and creates them with the purpose of torturiong them forever?

The only way this could possibly make sense it if God created everyone with a chance, but knew the ones who weren't going to choose Him through their own free will, and then condemned them to the Lake of Fire.
Even that is hard to understand. Why would a loving God create someone if He knew ahead of time that they would choose to go to hell?
 

[PaulDA]

PaulDA: Now you see why we cringe every time someone brings up Predestination?

Are you saying that everytime someone brings up predestination you are predestined to cringe?
Do you have a choice or is it automatic? :glance:  

[Tom]

PaulDa wrote: "Why would a loving God create someone if He knew ahead of time that they would choose to go to hell?"

so do you think it would it be better if we had absolutely no free will? i'm not picking an argument. but i just think God would rather we make decisions based on our love for Him; not because he's made us into mindless automatons who pay compulsory lip service to Him. how much value would our love be to God if He forced every good action out of us?

as far as why God would create a being knowing it was eternally flawed, only God knows. and He can't help the fact that He knows all things. but He surely would have a good reason, not that He owes us an explanation.

i hear your frustration with the idea though. and i sympathize with it. i've always felt a little sympathy for Judas myself. from what i read in the Scriptures, he had no choice from his birth but to betray the Christ. the anti-Christ also appears the same way. both are called the "son of perdition." is that fair? who can say. i think there is something behind the scenes in the spiritual realm that would explain it all to us. but we're not meant to know it, or understand it yet. God wants us to have faith that He will always do the right thing, without explaining everything to us. if God explained away EVERYTHING to us, then why would we need faith? we'd be no better than Thomas, having to see it all spelled out in front of us. in a human sense, that it isn't fair. but our concept of fairness is in part derived from our selfish natures.

[PaulDA]

so do you think it would it be better if we had absolutely no free will?

I think it would be better if God just didn't create the people He knew were going to die unsaved.
Or.....instead of torturing them forever in Hell, why not just let them die and be destroyed?
Or.....why not give them time (I mean, forever is a looong time) to change their minds?
Why should someone only get 70 years to make a decision that is going to affect them for trillions, hundreds of trillions times hundreds of trillions of years?

[Josh]

I think it would be better if God just didn't create the people He knew were going to die unsaved.

There are times when I feel the same way, but, apparently, God disagrees; the Bible makes it clear that the reprobates were created to be "vessels of destruction," and exist to further reveal God's glory.

Or.....instead of torturing them forever in Hell, why not just let them die and be destroyed?

Because God is a just God, and eternal torture in Hell is what they deserve.

Or.....why not give them time (I mean, forever is a looong time) to change their minds?

Because God is a just God, and they don't deserve time to change their minds. Also, because we're Christians, not Universalists.  

Why should someone only get 70 years to make a decision that is going to affect them for trillions, hundreds of trillions times hundreds of trillions of years?

This doesn't even seem to pertain to the argument at hand...

[PaulDA]

[Josh]

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, Paul. I don't remember ever saying this:

You believe that no one has any choice in the matter, that God has already chosen for them.

WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE: Man does have a certain degree of freedom to choose, but, like anything and everything, man is bound by his own nature. A dog cannot leap into the air and fly, nor can a fish survive out of water, but no one accuses these creatures of having a lack of free will; rather, we realize that there are certain things that they can simply not do.

It is the same way with us. Dogs do dog things. Fish do fish things. Fallen men do fallen man things. But we are not puppets, nor is God "making" us do anything.

Yet you then say that the 'lost' deserve to be punished in hell forever.

Yes, they do. That's what unatoned sin deserves.

[plumb_fan]

I understand where you're coming from Vlad (it's pretty much what I used to believe) though I may not completely agree.
 

So (and I really do want to know), how did you get from point a to point b? What was it that resolved all those issues and turned you into what appears to be a firm believer in predestination?

 

Well I think the first thing that should be mentioned is that a to b for me was not free will to predestination.  For me a to b was going from "I'll be a Christian as long as God acts 'this' way" to "God is just and loving in what He does because God is justice and God is love."  

I think that's a problem for many Christians.  As I said before, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with predestination.  I do however, have a problem with the type of thinking that denies God such authority.  The explaination is usually along the lines of "only someone sick and twisted person would do such a thing."  

I think this shows a major flaw in thinking.  Too many times (myself included) we take the webster's definition of love and apply that to God and say that must be how He acts.  To do so is backwards though,  God is love and that makes His actions loving.   Therefore, if God chooses to use predestination in the Calvinistic view of it He is still being a loving God.  Also to deny God such authority (imo) and say it is wrong is to put ourselves above God.

That isn't really what you were asking about though Vlad, but I felt it needed to be said.  To return to my experience, I can say it has been nothing but a gift from God.  I am more devoted in my walk, more sure of my convictions and more aware of God's work in the intracate details of my life and the lives of others.

I don't think predestination is completely accurate for what I believe.  When i'm talking about being predestined i'm meaning from God's perspective (being outside of time and all).  From a human perspective though, I do agree with things such as coming to Christ or even loosing your salvation. I don't believe "once saved, always saved."

I think my belief is closer to God's foreknowledge and attempting to understand just how that foreknowledge works.  I just try to remember that God created us differently and therefore He will work in each of our lives differently.  We are each at different spiritual levels and the priority as to what needs to be dealt with first won't be the same for everyone.  I don't view leaving my more arminian view of salvation to mean it was wrong.  I believe that was just one piece of the puzzle and once God deemed I could understand more He gave me another piece.

[Vlad!]

I don't think predestination is completely accurate for what I believe.  When i'm talking about being predestined i'm meaning from God's perspective (being outside of time and all).  From a human perspective though, I do agree with things such as coming to Christ or even loosing your salvation. I don't believe "once saved, always saved."

Interesting to find a very Arminian concept in someone who in many respects seems extremely Calvinist.

I think this shows a major flaw in thinking. Too many times (myself included) we take the webster's definition of love and apply that to God and say that must be how He acts. To do so is backwards though, God is love and that makes His actions loving. Therefore, if God chooses to use predestination in the Calvinistic view of it He is still being a loving God. Also to deny God such authority (imo) and say it is wrong is to put ourselves above God.

I can see that argument. However, we have been created in the image of God. Although our emotions and feelings will be tainted by our position as temporal creatures of flesh, I think that in general God's definition of love and ours are very much the same. When the Bible says 'God is love,' I don't see that as a definition but a promise. It's not saying 'God is intrinically love and all standards of love must be compared to him.' It is saying 'God is loving and will behave in that manner.'

I believe this. I believe that the concept of love is really the heart of Christianity. This is borne out by the teachings of Jesus, who when stating the two most important commandments in his entire philosophy put them both in terms of love. So when someone says 'God is like this or does things in this way,' one of the methods I use to judge whether I believe that is whether it fits in with the idea of a loving God. I'm not trying to say that God cannot do it any way he wants to--history is full of evidence that man can't dictate to God how he should act. But I'm saying that such a belief is not consistent with the concept of a loving God. I'm not putting boundaries on God, I am applying the boundaries that he himself has volunteered to be confined in to determine whether something is true or not. I hope this makes it clear.

I must admit that I am engaging in the same error that many neophyte debaters make: I am proposing nothing in the place of that which I am arguing against. This is because, like many who have contributed to this thread, I have no idea about how it actually is. All I know, or at least am pretty sure of, is how it is not. This is why my arguments are mainly centered around my problems with Calvinism rather than the virtues of some opposing theory. However, the objections in my previous post still stand and, as history has shown, probably will continue to stand as the participants in this debate see that this is turning into another unproductive back-and-forth.

[plumb_fan]

Interesting to find a very Arminian concept in someone who in many respects seems extremely Calvinist.



I believe this. I believe that the concept of love is really the heart of Christianity. This is borne out by the teachings of Jesus, who when stating the two most important commandments in his entire philosophy put them both in terms of love. So when someone says 'God is like this or does things in this way,' one of the methods I use to judge whether I believe that is whether it fits in with the idea of a loving God. I'm not trying to say that God cannot do it any way he wants to--history is full of evidence that man can't dictate to God how he should act. But I'm saying that such a belief is not consistent with the concept of a loving God. I'm not putting boundaries on God, I am applying the boundaries that he himself has volunteered to be confined in to determine whether something is true or not. I hope this makes it clear.

 

Calvinistic-Methodist buddy, calvinistic methodist (Are there any two protest denominations that are more at odds?).  My view of salvation incorporates both predestination and the four graces (propenient (sp?), justifying, sanctifying, and that other I can't think of at the moment) and I don't see it as a complete contradiction.

For the other, I'm pretty much in agreement with you.  Where disagreement comes in is on what we believe the boundaries God has applied to Himself are.

[PaulDA]

Could predestination be tied in with the fact that since God knows everything, He knew everyone who would choose salvation before He even created Adam and Eve?
Therefore, He did give people free will, but He knew before the foundation of qworld who would choose Him, and all people are required for God's plan to come forth.
Then, sending the unsaved to Hell would be justified because He did give them a chance, but they did not take it.
 

[PaulDA]

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, Paul. I don't remember ever saying this:



WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE: Man does have a certain degree of freedom to choose, but, like anything and everything, man is bound by his own nature. A dog cannot leap into the air and fly, nor can a fish survive out of water, but no one accuses these creatures of having a lack of free will; rather, we realize that there are certain things that they can simply not do.

It is the same way with us. Dogs do dog things. Fish do fish things. Fallen men do fallen man things. But we are not puppets, nor is God "making" us do anything.



Yes, they do. That's what unatoned sin deserves.

Oh, I apologize then.
I thought you were a staunch predestinationist.
I was just presenting what they would believe.
If you believe man has a choice then of course it makes more sense that these people deserve Hell.

My question, though, is for people who are complete predestination believers.
Maybe someone else who believes in strict predestination can answer this for me:
If God chooses who will go to Hell, if He created them that way, and they had no chance to choose salvation because God ordained them to Hell, if all of that is true, how would that justify sending them to the Lake of Fire if they had no chance to be saved in the first place?

[plumb_fan]

Could predestination be tied in with the fact that since God knows everything, He knew everyone who would choose salvation before He even created Adam and Eve?
Therefore, He did give people free will, but He knew before the foundation of qworld who would choose Him, and all people are required for God's plan to come forth.
Then, sending the unsaved to Hell would be justified because He did give them a chance, but they did not take it.

Most people call that foreknowledge.

[PaulDA]

Could predestination be tied in with the fact that since God knows everything, He knew everyone who would choose salvation before He even created Adam and Eve?
Therefore, He did give people free will, but He knew before the foundation of qworld who would choose Him, and all people are required for God's plan to come forth.
Then, sending the unsaved to Hell would be justified because He did give them a chance, but they did not take it.

Most people call that foreknowledge.

Yes, now could this 'foreknowledge' be confused with 'predestination'?
People think God purposely chose people to perish when what actually happened is God knew who would chose Him and who wouldn't but created everyone anyway so that His plan on Earth would be fulfilled.

[plumb_fan]

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, Paul. I don't remember ever saying this:



WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE: Man does have a certain degree of freedom to choose, but, like anything and everything, man is bound by his own nature. A dog cannot leap into the air and fly, nor can a fish survive out of water, but no one accuses these creatures of having a lack of free will; rather, we realize that there are certain things that they can simply not do.

It is the same way with us. Dogs do dog things. Fish do fish things. Fallen men do fallen man things. But we are not puppets, nor is God "making" us do anything.



Yes, they do. That's what unatoned sin deserves.

Oh, I apologize then.
I thought you were a staunch predestinationist.
I was just presenting what they would believe.
If you believe man has a choice then of course it makes more sense that these people deserve Hell.

My question, though, is for people who are complete predestination believers.
Maybe someone else who believes in strict predestination can answer this for me:
If God chooses who will go to Hell, if He created them that way, and they had no chance to choose salvation because God ordained them to Hell, if all of that is true, how would that justify sending them to the Lake of Fire if they had no chance to be saved in the first place?

Josh can speak for himself and i'm certainly not trying to do that for him.  Paul, it just seems to me that your view of what strict predestinationists believe and what they actually believe aren't completely the same.  From every Calvinist i've ever talked to Josh's answers seem pretty much in line.  I think the problem is that people have a stereotype of what a Calvinist believes and refuses to let them step outside of that box and explain what they truly believe.

To answer your question:  We have to remember that Hell is truly the absence of God's presence.  Because of total depravity these people would not have chosen God anyway.  Sending them to hell is giving them the option they would have chosen.  They didn't want to be in God's presence, He is simply granting them that.  I'm not saying they couldn't choose heaven, but just that, because of their depravity, they won't.
You might want to take that with a grain of salt though as I may not fit your definition of a strict predestination believer.  

[Josh]

Yeah, plumb fan is correct; Paul, you seem to have constructed a straw man representation of the average Calvinist. I, for one, know a vast number of Calvinists, and none of them fit the illogical, narrow-minded stereotype that you seem intent on spreading.

[Vlad!]

Although your points agree with some of my thinking on the issue, Paul, I do believe you have largely misinterpreted standard predestination.

As I understand it (and I'm not the best one to elaborate on this, so I would certainly appreciate correction from those who know more:
-Extreme predestination says that God controls our every action. I don't think anyone here actually believes that. This is what I think Josh meant when he said people are not God's puppets.
-Double predestination says that God chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Many find this disturbing due to the thought that God could make some people specifically destined for hell.
-Single predestination says that God chooses those who go to heaven and the rest are responsible for their own damnation. I think this is mainly a semantic difference from the above, with the exception that God does not necessarily want these people in hell so much as he is regretfully giving them what they deserve.

An additional doctrine is the depravity of man. As I understand Calvinism, it claims that man is 'totally depraved'. This means that left to our own devices and presented with a moral choice, we will choose the wrong one 100% of the time. Anything good that we do comes from the intervention of God. This is no doubt where the apparent belief that all predestinationists are extreme predestinationsts come from.

There are other nuances that I don't purport to understand fully (or care about much), but I think this should help clear up some confusion, unless I'm wrong and then it will create more confusion    

[plumb_fan]

-Single predestination says that God chooses those who go to heaven and the rest are responsible for their own damnation. I think this is mainly a semantic difference from the above, with the exception that God does not necessarily want these people in hell so much as he is regretfully giving them what they deserve.

An additional doctrine is the depravity of man. As I understand Calvinism, it claims that man is 'totally depraved'. This means that left to our own devices and presented with a moral choice, we will choose the wrong one 100% of the time. Anything good that we do comes from the intervention of God.

That would be my stance on the issue.

[plumb_fan]

Yes, now could this 'foreknowledge' be confused with 'predestination'?
People think God purposely chose people to perish when what actually happened is God knew who would chose Him and who wouldn't but created everyone anyway so that His plan on Earth would be fulfilled.

I think the two could be confused, though i've honestly never seen it happen.  I don't think you could have predestination without foreknowledge and i'm inclined to believe you can't have foreknowledge without predestination.  That being said, I don't believe they are one in the same.